3
$\begingroup$

Let $K^\mu = V(x)U^\mu$ be vector proportional to the four-velocity $U^\mu$. (e.g. $K^\mu$ is a normalized time-like Killing vector for an observer at infinity).

Then, $V(x) = \sqrt{-K_\nu K^\nu}$ is called the "redshift factor".

Also, the four-acceleration $a^\mu$ is given by $U^\sigma \nabla_\sigma U^\mu$.

According to Sean Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry, p. 247, $a_\mu = \nabla_\mu\ln V$. Why?

Attempt:

\begin{align}\nabla_\mu\ln V &= \frac 1{2V^2}\nabla_\mu\left(-K_\nu K^\nu\right)\\ &=-\frac 1{2V^2}\left((\nabla_\mu K_\nu)K^\nu + K_\nu\nabla_\mu K^\nu\right)\\ &=-\frac 1{2V^2}\left((\nabla_\mu g_{\rho\nu}K^\rho)K^\nu + K_\nu\nabla_\mu K^\nu\right)\\ &=-\frac 1{2V^2}\left(K_\rho\nabla_\mu K^\rho + K_\nu\nabla_\mu K^\nu\right)\\ &=-\frac {K_\nu\nabla_\mu K^\nu}{V^2}\\ &= -\frac 1{V}U_\nu\nabla_\mu\left(VU^\nu\right)\\ &= -U_\nu\nabla_\mu U^\nu - \frac 1 VU_\nu U^\nu\nabla_\mu V\end{align}

$\endgroup$
1

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

At some point in your calculation, you got the following:

$$\nabla_\mu \ln{V} =-\frac{1}{V^2} K_\nu \nabla_\mu K^\nu$$

Using the metric compatibility, we can write

$$\nabla_\mu \ln{V} =-\frac{1}{V^2} K_\nu \nabla_\mu \left( g^{\nu \lambda} K_\lambda \right)=-\frac{1}{V^2} K_\nu g^{\nu \lambda} \nabla_\mu K_\lambda=-\frac{1}{V^2} K^\lambda \nabla_\mu K_\lambda.$$

Now, since $K^\mu$ is a Killing vector field, then it satisfies the Killing equation:

$$ \nabla_\mu K_\lambda + \nabla_\lambda K_\mu =0.$$

Substituting in the equation above, we get

$$\nabla_\mu \ln{V}= \frac{1}{V^2} K^\lambda \nabla_\lambda K_\mu.$$

Using the relation $K^\lambda= V(x) U^\lambda$, we get

$$\nabla_\mu \ln{V}= \frac{1}{V^2} \left( VU^\lambda \right) \nabla_\lambda \left( V U_\mu \right).$$

Applying the Leibniz rule,

$$\nabla_\mu \ln{V}= \frac{1}{V} U^\lambda \left( (\nabla_\lambda V) U_\mu + (\nabla_\lambda U_\mu) V \right).$$

$$\therefore \nabla_\mu \ln{V}= U^\lambda U_\mu \frac{1}{V} \nabla_\lambda V + U^\lambda \nabla_\lambda U_\mu$$

Or, using $a_\mu = U^\lambda \nabla_\lambda U_\mu$ and $\frac{1}{V} \nabla_\lambda V =\nabla_\lambda \ln{V}$,

$$ \nabla_\mu \ln{V}= U_\mu U^\lambda \nabla_\lambda \ln{V} + a_\mu \ \ \ \ \ \rightarrow (1)$$

Now, contract both side of equation (1) with $U^\mu$ and use the fact that $a_\mu U^\mu=0$ and $U^\mu U_\mu=-1$.

$$\therefore U^\mu \nabla_\mu \ln{V}= - U^\lambda \nabla_\lambda \ln{V}.$$

The only way this is satisfied is to have

$$U^\lambda \nabla_\lambda \ln{V}=0 \ \ \ \ \ \rightarrow (2)$$

Substitute from equation (1) into equation (2), you get:

$$ \nabla_\mu \ln{V}=a_\mu,$$

which is what we wanted to prove.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ For those wondering, $U^\mu a_\mu = 0$ because $U^\mu \propto K^\mu$, so in one hand $U^\mu U^\nu = U^\nu U^\mu$, which implies that $U^\mu a_\mu = U^\mu U^\nu \nabla_\mu U_\nu$ after renaming indices, and in the other hand $\nabla_{(\mu}U_{\nu)} = 0$, which implies that $U^\mu a_\mu = -U^\mu U^\nu \nabla_\mu U_\nu$. This is only consistent iff $U^\mu a_\mu = 0$. $\endgroup$
    – Albert
    Commented Dec 11, 2023 at 18:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.